|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president, because anyone else would be able make argument that if states arent people and if the "states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state" then state shouldnt hold elections. Honestly Wombat, how can you say it is gotcha? It literally says " regardless of the results within the state" that literally means that result of your state vote doesnt matter. Let me remind you elected officials of a state should represent their state, not entire country. Honestly: "I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself." Bolded is the only reason you defending it. Edit: Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president
Whatever they are they aren’t people.
The ‘gotcha’ I refer to is your seeming attempt to own the libs or something by combining two completely different issues into one so you can imply hypocrisy.
Perfect electoral systems don’t exist, if they do I havent seen em. I just generally disagree with mechanisms that can conceivably bestow national power from a minority of voters in said nation, unless there’s a very good reason for doing so, or mitigating structures in place
There’s a clip of me as a voxpop on BBC News from like 16 years ago floating around when I made the same basic arguments against FPTP in the UK when we had a referendum on reforming it. As far as I’m aware, may have to check dates but I don’t think Trump was even born then, and the UK is a different country, so perhaps my position isn’t that informed by wanting the Dems to win to keep out a Trump.
Also, if disenfranchisement = ‘your vote is ultimately irrelevant’, this is worse under the electoral college, or FPTP. If you live in a solidly blue or red state, or Tory/Labour stronghold but are inclined in other ways, your vote has no impact on the national election whatsoever.
If you think the electoral college is great, make an argument why you don’t want it changed, go ahead and do that. Attaching it to something basically unrelated other than it involving voting is daft
|
On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do?
You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling  .
On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again.
On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:Is there something wrong with you?
No, but I appreciate concern.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern.
‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’
Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part.
I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no?
Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place.
You’re welcome to make such a case by all means.
I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO
Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does
|
United States44109 Posts
On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again.
Interesting take on the political preferences of the US voting public.
On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern.
Have you been checked?
|
Canada11555 Posts
Sooo the strait is possibly not open or it is sort of not not closed?
Or at least it is open on the designated route with Iranian authorization?
Insert the Open the Gate! meme, I guess.
On the plus side, Dr Donald the Messiah will have upped his peace count to twenty or thirty by the end of the year as he will have ended the Iranian war a dozen times I'm sure.
|
On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it.
IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter.
|
On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter.
I have no idea where the obsession with the US not being progressive enough when it's consistently more progressive than their home countries are to begin with comes from.
|
Canada11555 Posts
On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter.
The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name.
Just take a page out of the Canadian ID system- I'm sure some states already do something like it but you just won't get it at a national level because states control voter ID laws.
Option 1: Show one of these pieces of ID
your driver's licence
any other card issued by a Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial or local) with your photo, name and current address
Option 2: Show two pieces of ID
Both must have your name and at least one must have your current address.
Examples:
health card and bank statement
utility bill and student ID card
See the full list of accepted ID below to prove your identity and address under Option 2.
Option 3: If you don't have ID
You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions).
Same day registration and a check box on your tax return that if checked the government can use your tax information to register you to vote, and you would have a robust voter ID system that wouldn't suppress American citizens' right to vote.
|
On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern.
Just admit that you want DEI for the stupids and deplorables because they couldn't win otherwise. ;-)
|
On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name. Just take a page out of the Canadian ID system- I'm sure some states already do something like it but you just won't get it at a national level because states control voter ID laws. Show nested quote +Option 1: Show one of these pieces of ID
your driver's licence
any other card issued by a Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial or local) with your photo, name and current address Show nested quote +
Option 2: Show two pieces of ID
Both must have your name and at least one must have your current address.
Examples:
health card and bank statement
utility bill and student ID card
See the full list of accepted ID below to prove your identity and address under Option 2.
Show nested quote +Option 3: If you don't have ID
You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions). Same day registration and a check box on your tax return that if checked the government can use your tax information to register you to vote, and you would have a robust voter ID system that wouldn't suppress American citizens' right to vote.
Last time I checked every state that required photo ID to vote accepts driver's licenses. They also offer free state ID if you do not have a license. Those things you mentioned are also used a lot in the US to prove residency.
The latest thing is the argument is about married women but again that's a bad argument. And instead of making the myriad of replies or pointing out where that's wrong, I'll just mention that Republicans *win* married women almost every election. Doing something that would make fewer of their own voters vote is not something they would do in a million years.
Which states are so strict as to be over the line, in your opinion? Which states require a passport, as you claimed?
Photo ID is one the most popular ideas with voters. It seems the majority don't think it would make it too hard to vote
|
Canada11555 Posts
Well, right now it's actually the federal government, the SAVE Act, which is also trying to severely limit mail in ballots... despite no proof of widespread fraud... and Trump's continual propagation of conspiracy theories regarding mail in ballots. (Resulting in 51% of the GOP believing that the 2020 presidential elections were decided by fraudulent ballots or hacked voting machines-- New Entrant Republicans this rises to 60%).
And the SAVE Act doesn't accept a driver's license as a sufficient ID on its own but requires an additional form of ID (birth certificate, Record of Birth, adoption decree, etc). It furthermore doesn't allow for the Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods of identifying as in the Canadian system (which would be necessary to satisfy the accusation of 'woke' hypocrisy). And the majority thinking it wouldn't be too hard to vote isn't the same thing as it being so. Furthermore, it should be demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place that only photo ID would solve-- and that even a driver's license is insufficient as photo ID. Because the three tier system works and is far less onerous to allow citizens to vote.
|
On April 18 2026 07:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
....with masks to arrest brown people....
Are you stupid or what. The whole world is watching in absolute horror. are you stupid or what? people who live a lot closer to the USA than you do... who visit all the time... can't wait to get a job in the USA. Canada's best tech school is the University of Waterloo. It has the best co-op program in the nation. Every student in Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Computer Science, and Actuarial Science .. their first choice is a job in the USA. The school is a 1.5 hour drive from the border and the students visit the USA all the time. They know far better what is going on than you do. https://uwimprint.ca/fall-2024-co-op-employment-rates-show-consistent-success-in-the-programme/Here is my graduating class. lots of "brown people" as you say. https://uwaterloo.ca/electrical-computer-engineering/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/2010_ce.pdfShow nested quote +. Canada and the U.S., however, still remained dominantly in the top two locations for students to find their co-op placements. Ontario nurses are flooding into the USA because they are tired of having the shit kicked out of them and the Canadian police doing fuck all about it. The average Ontario Nurse is assaulted 11 times in her career. https://ona.org/campaign/code-black-blue/Show nested quote +WSIB data obtained by ONA from 2021 to 2024 show that health-care workers missed 130,438 days of work due to workplace violence and harassment These people have a much better first hand grasp of the USA than you do. And they're moving there for a better life. Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah you think a totally out of control militia running around neighborhoods with masks to arrest brown people, totally ignoring due process, separating kids and parents, the University of Waterloo students get called "brown" all the time ... and they are flooding into the USA and can't wait to get here. As I said, entry into the USA was too easy for a long time. Now, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Thing is, you are not forced to visit. No one is obligated to come to the USA. If you dislike it that much... don't go. That said, there are a lot of great people in the USA. A LOT. About a million people legally immigrated into the USA in 2025. Show nested quote + The resulting estimate is that there were 560,000 to 575,000 green cards issued abroad in 2025, compared to about 670,000 in 2024. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/macroeconomic-implications-of-immigration-flows-in-2025-and-2026-january-2026-update/This accounts for about 1/2 because it only counts the people outside the USA being granted a work visa. About as many people were converted to a green card while INSIDE the USA. So the USA is still a big destination of choice for people throughout the world and from other G7 nations.
Tourism towards the US plummeted 6% in 2025 while it had been a record year elsewhere, and international students entries are down 20% compared to 2024. Meanwhile the newspapers in the world are full of stories of people inhuman, cruel or ridiculous treatment by ICE, starting with researchers being denied entry to a conference because he had a meme of Vance on his phone to people sent in concentration camps in Nicaragua because they had tattoos and a Latino face.
Minneapolis was a global outrage, making the front page of newspapers all around the world, and the opinion of the US is at an absolutely all time low.
So yeah, pretty solid.
|
On April 18 2026 16:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name. Just take a page out of the Canadian ID system- I'm sure some states already do something like it but you just won't get it at a national level because states control voter ID laws. Option 1: Show one of these pieces of ID
your driver's licence
any other card issued by a Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial or local) with your photo, name and current address
Option 2: Show two pieces of ID
Both must have your name and at least one must have your current address.
Examples:
health card and bank statement
utility bill and student ID card
See the full list of accepted ID below to prove your identity and address under Option 2.
Option 3: If you don't have ID
You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions). Same day registration and a check box on your tax return that if checked the government can use your tax information to register you to vote, and you would have a robust voter ID system that wouldn't suppress American citizens' right to vote. Last time I checked every state that required photo ID to vote accepts driver's licenses. They also offer free state ID if you do not have a license. Those things you mentioned are also used a lot in the US to prove residency. The latest thing is the argument is about married women but again that's a bad argument. And instead of making the myriad of replies or pointing out where that's wrong, I'll just mention that Republicans *win* married women almost every election. Doing something that would make fewer of their own voters vote is not something they would do in a million years. Which states are so strict as to be over the line, in your opinion? Which states require a passport, as you claimed? Photo ID is one the most popular ideas with voters. It seems the majority don't think it would make it too hard to vote (4) A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States. Drivers licenses and id cards generally do not list the country of origin (in the US) and would therefor not be a valid ID under the SAVE act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text
|
On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name.
Exactly. Voter ID itself is not a problem. We have voter ID in Germany (somewhat). The problem is that no one trusts republicans not to use this to try to make people who don't vote for republicans vote less often.
If you want voter ID, first make sure that everyone who can vote has ID.
In Germany, everyone has a national ID card. Thus, requiring that ID card to vote is not a problem. Also, everyone who can vote is automatically added to the voter register, because they are registered at their municipality anyways. So about a month before an election, you get a letter telling you when and where to vote, and you take that letter to the polling station to vote. Usually that is enough. If you don't look like the kind of person with the name on the document (a white girl claiming to be named Muhammed or whatever), they can ask for your ID card, and you have to provide that, too.
You can also send that letter back to get mail-in voting documents.
This works very well, and it disenfranchises no one.
This is one of the parts where elections in the US are feel like a game, and both parties (but especially the republicans) use dirty tricks to win. Everyone knows that republicans wouldn't even be talking about voter ID if they didn't think it would give them an advantage. They know that the people who vote against them are more likely to not have the ID they require, and the people who check the ID are more likely to be republicans and thus make it more easy for people who vote for them to identify, while being very hard-assed about people who statistically don't vote for republicans.
If you want voter ID, first make a huge push for national ID cards for everyone. Make them incredibly easy to get everywhere (and also free, of course). No long waiting times, lots of offices which distribute them. Maybe even make having one mandatory like here in Germany. Make sure that basically everyone has one. Then afterwards, make a voter ID law that requires that ID card.
|
On April 18 2026 16:49 Falling wrote:
Well, right now it's actually the federal government, the SAVE Act, which is also trying to severely limit mail in ballots... despite no proof of widespread fraud... and Trump's continual propagation of conspiracy theories regarding mail in ballots. (Resulting in 51% of the GOP believing that the 2020 presidential elections were decided by fraudulent ballots or hacked voting machines-- New Entrant Republicans this rises to 60%).
And the SAVE Act doesn't accept a driver's license as a sufficient ID on its own but requires an additional form of ID (birth certificate, Record of Birth, adoption decree, etc). It furthermore doesn't allow for the Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods of identifying as in the Canadian system (which would be necessary to satisfy the accusation of 'woke' hypocrisy). And the majority thinking it wouldn't be too hard to vote isn't the same thing as it being so. Furthermore, it should be demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place that only photo ID would solve-- and that even a driver's license is insufficient as photo ID. Because the three tier system works and is far less onerous to allow citizens to vote.
Ok so you are talking about a bill with zero percent chance to become law as opposed to ID requirements as they actually exist. I feel like perhaps seeing the way it actually works ought to be done be, as the way it is actually done is much closer to what you say you want.
Because it's chances stand at zero I am not interested in discussing the particulars although I of course note for the record supporters dispute your characterization r.e. married women. And again, it would be rather stupid of the GOP to support something that directly hurt their own chances. That ought to be a hint that more is going on here.
photo ID is a good idea even on its own, besides making it easier to prevent cheating that would be hard to find it, it is a massive confidence boost which I think lots of people could use. Many, many other countries manage. And many of our states too.
On April 18 2026 18:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name. Exactly. Voter ID itself is not a problem. We have voter ID in Germany (somewhat). The problem is that no one trusts republicans not to use this to try to make people who don't vote for republicans vote less often. If you want voter ID, first make sure that everyone who can vote has ID. In Germany, everyone has a national ID card. Thus, requiring that ID card to vote is not a problem. Also, everyone who can vote is automatically added to the voter register, because they are registered at their municipality anyways. So about a month before an election, you get a letter telling you when and where to vote, and you take that letter to the polling station to vote. Usually that is enough. If you don't look like the kind of person with the name on the document (a white girl claiming to be named Muhammed or whatever), they can ask for your ID card, and you have to provide that, too. You can also send that letter back to get mail-in voting documents. This works very well, and it disenfranchises no one. This is one of the parts where elections in the US are feel like a game, and both parties (but especially the republicans) use dirty tricks to win. Everyone knows that republicans wouldn't even be talking about voter ID if they didn't think it would give them an advantage. They know that the people who vote against them are more likely to not have the ID they require, and the people who check the ID are more likely to be republicans and thus make it more easy for people who vote for them to identify, while being very hard-assed about people who statistically don't vote for republicans. If you want voter ID, first make a huge push for national ID cards for everyone. Make them incredibly easy to get everywhere (and also free, of course). No long waiting times, lots of offices which distribute them. Maybe even make having one mandatory like here in Germany. Make sure that basically everyone has one. Then afterwards, make a voter ID law that requires that ID card.
That middle bit is just an assertion I would note. Other countries have ID requirements, and a vast majority of Americans of support it. Secondly, one could logically believe that voter ID would help you win more, but because *there is less fraud*. The "eveyone knows" why totally discounts, the, you know, actual good reasons to have photo ID.
|
On April 18 2026 18:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name. Exactly. Voter ID itself is not a problem. We have voter ID in Germany (somewhat). The problem is that no one trusts republicans not to use this to try to make people who don't vote for republicans vote less often. If you want voter ID, first make sure that everyone who can vote has ID. In Germany, everyone has a national ID card. Thus, requiring that ID card to vote is not a problem. Also, everyone who can vote is automatically added to the voter register, because they are registered at their municipality anyways. So about a month before an election, you get a letter telling you when and where to vote, and you take that letter to the polling station to vote. Usually that is enough. If you don't look like the kind of person with the name on the document (a white girl claiming to be named Muhammed or whatever), they can ask for your ID card, and you have to provide that, too. You can also send that letter back to get mail-in voting documents. This works very well, and it disenfranchises no one. This is one of the parts where elections in the US are feel like a game, and both parties (but especially the republicans) use dirty tricks to win. Everyone knows that republicans wouldn't even be talking about voter ID if they didn't think it would give them an advantage. They know that the people who vote against them are more likely to not have the ID they require, and the people who check the ID are more likely to be republicans and thus make it more easy for people who vote for them to identify, while being very hard-assed about people who statistically don't vote for republicans. If you want voter ID, first make a huge push for national ID cards for everyone. Make them incredibly easy to get everywhere (and also free, of course). No long waiting times, lots of offices which distribute them. Maybe even make having one mandatory like here in Germany. Make sure that basically everyone has one. Then afterwards, make a voter ID law that requires that ID card.
Identification in general is a tricky topic. It was taboo in the Netherlands for about 40 years after WW2 to even discuss the government requiring ID, due to how identification had been abused by the Nazis to find Jews, but also resistance members. Voter identification was done by sending everybody registered locally a voter pass, which you handed in. That was all you needed until 2010. There was pretty little resistance at that point to requiring voter ID for elections, but when general mandatory identification was required in 2005 it was a huge deal. From 1995 until 2005 identification was only required for a few specific things and even that was a big deal at the time (the two political parties who governed back then have to this day not disclosed whose idea it was to require it).
Suffice to say, I don't think introducing mandatory ID in general will be easier than requiring it for elections, but once you have that, obviously requiring that ID to vote is a mostly irrelevant formality: you have to be able to identify yourself regardless, so doing so to vote is not a problem anymore.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 18 2026 18:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 18:01 Simberto wrote:On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name. Exactly. Voter ID itself is not a problem. We have voter ID in Germany (somewhat). The problem is that no one trusts republicans not to use this to try to make people who don't vote for republicans vote less often. If you want voter ID, first make sure that everyone who can vote has ID. In Germany, everyone has a national ID card. Thus, requiring that ID card to vote is not a problem. Also, everyone who can vote is automatically added to the voter register, because they are registered at their municipality anyways. So about a month before an election, you get a letter telling you when and where to vote, and you take that letter to the polling station to vote. Usually that is enough. If you don't look like the kind of person with the name on the document (a white girl claiming to be named Muhammed or whatever), they can ask for your ID card, and you have to provide that, too. You can also send that letter back to get mail-in voting documents. This works very well, and it disenfranchises no one. This is one of the parts where elections in the US are feel like a game, and both parties (but especially the republicans) use dirty tricks to win. Everyone knows that republicans wouldn't even be talking about voter ID if they didn't think it would give them an advantage. They know that the people who vote against them are more likely to not have the ID they require, and the people who check the ID are more likely to be republicans and thus make it more easy for people who vote for them to identify, while being very hard-assed about people who statistically don't vote for republicans. If you want voter ID, first make a huge push for national ID cards for everyone. Make them incredibly easy to get everywhere (and also free, of course). No long waiting times, lots of offices which distribute them. Maybe even make having one mandatory like here in Germany. Make sure that basically everyone has one. Then afterwards, make a voter ID law that requires that ID card. Identification in general is a tricky topic. It was taboo in the Netherlands for about 40 years after WW2 to even discuss the government requiring ID, due to how identification had been abused by the Nazis to find Jews, but also resistance members. Voter identification was done by sending everybody registered locally a voter pass, which you handed in. That was all you needed until 2010. There was pretty little resistance at that point to requiring voter ID for elections, but when general mandatory identification was required in 2005 it was a huge deal. From 1995 until 2005 identification was only required for a few specific things and even that was a big deal at the time (the two political parties who governed back then have to this day not disclosed whose idea it was to require it). Suffice to say, I don't think introducing mandatory ID in general will be easier than requiring it for elections, but once you have that, obviously requiring that ID to vote is a mostly irrelevant formality: you have to be able to identify yourself regardless, so doing so to vote is not a problem anymore.
It is tricky indeed, there seems a rather common and somewhat odd combination to me of demand for mechanisms to exist to stop x, y or z that a general mandatory ID would largely solve, but a big resistance to said ID. Even in places without the understandable historical baggage of the Netherlands under Nazi occcupation.
Not that there aren’t reasonable arguments for either independently necessarily, it’s the two in combination I find strange
It does seem to have somewhat shifted in the UK whenever this particular topic rears its head, in the Blair years I recall the main pushback was more from the left and more centred in worries of abuse under the pretence of security. Lately, as with Starmer’s mooted proposals a bit more from the right, and couched a bit differently, often bundled with resistance to things like the gradual move to a more physically cashless society etc.
|
On April 18 2026 19:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 18:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 18 2026 18:01 Simberto wrote:On April 18 2026 15:38 Falling wrote:On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it. IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name. Exactly. Voter ID itself is not a problem. We have voter ID in Germany (somewhat). The problem is that no one trusts republicans not to use this to try to make people who don't vote for republicans vote less often. If you want voter ID, first make sure that everyone who can vote has ID. In Germany, everyone has a national ID card. Thus, requiring that ID card to vote is not a problem. Also, everyone who can vote is automatically added to the voter register, because they are registered at their municipality anyways. So about a month before an election, you get a letter telling you when and where to vote, and you take that letter to the polling station to vote. Usually that is enough. If you don't look like the kind of person with the name on the document (a white girl claiming to be named Muhammed or whatever), they can ask for your ID card, and you have to provide that, too. You can also send that letter back to get mail-in voting documents. This works very well, and it disenfranchises no one. This is one of the parts where elections in the US are feel like a game, and both parties (but especially the republicans) use dirty tricks to win. Everyone knows that republicans wouldn't even be talking about voter ID if they didn't think it would give them an advantage. They know that the people who vote against them are more likely to not have the ID they require, and the people who check the ID are more likely to be republicans and thus make it more easy for people who vote for them to identify, while being very hard-assed about people who statistically don't vote for republicans. If you want voter ID, first make a huge push for national ID cards for everyone. Make them incredibly easy to get everywhere (and also free, of course). No long waiting times, lots of offices which distribute them. Maybe even make having one mandatory like here in Germany. Make sure that basically everyone has one. Then afterwards, make a voter ID law that requires that ID card. Identification in general is a tricky topic. It was taboo in the Netherlands for about 40 years after WW2 to even discuss the government requiring ID, due to how identification had been abused by the Nazis to find Jews, but also resistance members. Voter identification was done by sending everybody registered locally a voter pass, which you handed in. That was all you needed until 2010. There was pretty little resistance at that point to requiring voter ID for elections, but when general mandatory identification was required in 2005 it was a huge deal. From 1995 until 2005 identification was only required for a few specific things and even that was a big deal at the time (the two political parties who governed back then have to this day not disclosed whose idea it was to require it). Suffice to say, I don't think introducing mandatory ID in general will be easier than requiring it for elections, but once you have that, obviously requiring that ID to vote is a mostly irrelevant formality: you have to be able to identify yourself regardless, so doing so to vote is not a problem anymore. It is tricky indeed, there seems a rather common and somewhat odd combination to me of demand for mechanisms to exist to stop x, y or z that a general mandatory ID would largely solve, but a big resistance to said ID. Even in places without the understandable historical baggage of the Netherlands under Nazi occcupation. Not that there aren’t reasonable arguments for either independently necessarily, it’s the two in combination I find strange It does seem to have somewhat shifted in the UK whenever this particular topic rears its head, in the Blair years I recall the main pushback was more from the left and more centred in worries of abuse under the pretence of security. Lately, as with Starmer’s mooted proposals a bit more from the right, and couched a bit differently, often bundled with resistance to things like the gradual move to a more physically cashless society etc.
My main concern is that creating new voter ID laws in the United States wouldn't actually provide any measurable improvement or benefit to the security of our elections, because they're already incredibly secure. It's a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't actually exist, pushed by Trump and other Republicans who lie about there being widespread voter fraud whenever they lose (yet, curiously, never complain when they win).
Theoretically, I'm not against voter ID as long as one is *immediately* and *automatically* provided to all voters *for free*. In practice, however, we know that conservatives are maliciously pushing this to disenfranchise demographics who disproportionately (and legally) vote for Democrats, and they're trying to create extra roadblocks and hurdles to make it harder to vote. These laws would weaken the constitutional right to vote for many Americans, and there's no good-faith reason to need them.
|
looks like the Strait of Hormuz is closed again guys. Just to convert Trump's time measurements from the imperial system to the metric system everyone else uses: "for ever" = "40 hours".
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/18/world/live-news/iran-war-trump-israel
On April 18 2026 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Theoretically, I'm not against voter ID as long as one is *immediately* and *automatically* provided to all voters *for free*. In practice, however, we know that conservatives are maliciously pushing this to disenfranchise demographics who disproportionately (and legally) vote for Democrats, and they're trying to create extra roadblocks and hurdles to make it harder to vote. These laws would weaken the constitutional right to vote for many Americans, and there's no good-faith reason to need them.
I got let in the country at the Peace Bridge with no ID in August of 2001. What a stupid move. Way too lenient. There is no way anyone should be let in the country ... or allowed to vote without ID. They have to verify they are US citizens to vote. Period. End of story.
Without ID anyone can vote. At that point, you don't have a country.
I need ID to vote in Canada. I need ID to enter Canada. Try getting into Canada from the USA without ID. It won't go well and it should not go well.
|
United States44109 Posts
Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
